Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



A 



SERMON 



ON THE 



BY REV. AARON B. CHURCH, 

OF DENNYSVILLE, ME. 



ANDOVER : 

PUBLISHED BY MARK NEWMAN 

1827. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 

Being a young man, not yet two years in the ministry, it would be pre- 
sumption in me to think of distinguishing myself as a disputant. I 
hope the reader will be satisfied that I have not attempted great things. I 
have endeavoured to present a scriptural view of the arguments on this sub- 
ject, and being such I thought it calculated to do good. Unless I had so 
judged I could not consistently have published on a subject, upon which 
there is already so much before the public. I sincerely hope that what I 
have written may be below the attention of the critic, and on the other hand,, 
that it may afford satisfaction to many candid inquirers after truth, and es- 
tablish the wavering. 

THE AUTHOR 



J. S. & C. Adams, printers, 
Amherst, Mass. 



SERMON 



MATTHEW XXII, 45. 

IF DAVID THEN CALL HIM LORD, HOW IS HE HIS SON ? 

Jesus had said to the Pharisees, What think je 
of Christ, whose son is he ? They say unto him, 
the son of David. He saith unto them, how then 
doth David in spirit call him Lord ? Saying the 
Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand 
till I make thine enemies thy footstool. If David 
then call him Lord, how is he his son ? They seem 
to have been confounded by this question ; for to 
call one Lord was acknowledging the superiority of 
the person addressed, and it was language inconsist- 
ent for a Father to address to one who was merely 
his son. 

f In answer to the question contained in the text? 
I would say 

First. That Christ possessed two natures. He 
was truly and properly man, he was also more than 
man — He possessed a higher nature. 

1. He possessed human nature, he was truly 
and properly man. There are few who r'eny his 
human nature, so that it will not be nec Ossary sfc® 
multiply proofs in favor of the position* 



4 



He was the son of David. He looked and acted 
like a man. He was born of a woman. He increas- 
ed in wisdom and stature. He ate, drank, slept 
and walked like other men. He was subject to 
pain and distress, was weary, grieved, sorrowful. 

The Bible says, (Heb. 2: 17) In all things it be- 
hooved him to be made like unto his brethren, (v. 14) 
For as much then as the children are partakers of 
flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. 
It is said of Christ, on account of his having taken 
this nature upon him, that he is not ashamed to call 
us brethren. Such language would lead us to think 
that he possessed also a higher nature, for it would 
be singular indeed, speaking of one who w 7 as only 
man, to say that he took upon him flesh and was 
not ashamed to call us brethren. 

He was a man not in regard to his body merely, 
but also in regard to his mind. "It behooved him in 
all things to be made like unto his brethren." But 
the mind or human affections are a very essential 
part of man. As man he was in all points tempted 
like as we are, yet without sin — that is, he was 
tempted as far as our natures could be tempted while 
we remain sinless. He became man, we are told, 
(Heb. 2: 9) for the suffering of death — so that he 
might suffer death — might be in a condition to suf- 
fer ■ and also that he might set us an example of 
obedience, and this he has done. Being man he 
has left an example of meekness, condescension 
and devotion. Possessing human nature as well as 
a more exalted nature, he was able in all respects 



5 



to set us this example ; and we are to walk in his 
steps. 

/As man, or possessing our social feelings he was 
the friend of Lazarus, and loved the household of 
Martha. Had he possessed the higher nature mere- 
ly— had he been incapable of being wearied and 
grieved, he could not in those particulars have set us 
an example. But he was subject to sorrow and 
pain, he was tempted, and felt grieved like other 
men ; and has left us a pattern for our imitation, 
when we may be in like circumstances. 

He has set us an example of devotion, and his 
example would have been defective indeed had he 
not led a life of prayer. It was necessary that in 
regard to this duty, as well as all others, he should 
leave us an example, and I wish that this might be 
distinctly remembered. 

Professor Stuart (page 118) says " I know of 
no proposition that can be proved from the New 
Testament if this cannot (i. e. that Christ was tru- 
ly and properly a man); nor do I know of an opinion 
more inconsistent with the whole history of Jesus, 
than that of the Docetse, who averred that Christ 
was a man in appearance merely, and not in 
reality." And again he says " If the evidence be 
not overwhelming that Christ was perfectly a man 
I cannot conceive it possible that any point in The- 
ology or morals is capable of being established by 
the language of the New Testament." 

Very few deny the human nature of Christ — 
most of the Unitarians, especially of the Unitarian 
divines, if I do not much mistake, believe this to be 



6 



his only nature ; and Trinitarians of the present day 
as far as I know, universally acknowledge the real 
humanity of Christ. 

2. Though Christ was man, he was also more 
thau man — He possessed a higher, a more exalted 
nature. I am sensible that this is a controverted 
point. I am aware that most of the Unitarians of 
the present day are Humanitarians, or maintain that 
Christ was merely a man, and had no existence be- 
fore he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Ma- 
ry. Yet I do consider the proofs of the higher na- 
ture, and pre-existence of Christ to be so abundant, 
that no one regarding the authority of the New 
Testament can consistently doubt it. 

(1 Peter 1:11) It is said of the ancient pro- 
phets that they were " searching what, or what 
manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in 
them did signify, when it testified before-hand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 

And again (John 8: 58) " Jesus said unto them 
verily, verily, I say unto you before Abraham 
was, I am." (16: 18) I came forth from the Father, 
and am come into the world : again, I leave the 
world, and go to the Father. (6: 62) What and if 
ye shall see the son of man ascend up, where he 
was before ? (1 Cor. 15: 47) The second man is 
the Lord from Heaven. (Col.l: 16) It is said that 
by him, and for him were all things created. 

He could have had nothing to do in creating 
the world, had he not at that time existed. (John 
1 : 2) All things were made by him, and without 
him was not any thing made that was made. Christ 



sometimes is represented as the Creator of the Uni- 
verse, and sometimes as a man of sorrow ; if both 
these representatives are true, then he must be pos- 
sessed of two natures. We can reconcile such asser- 
tions on no other supposition ; and there is, as I con- 
ceive, abundant evidence of his human, and also of 
his super human nature. 

3. The two natures of Christ are so united as to 
constitute him one person. How the union of these 
two natures is effected, I shall not attempt to explain. 
It is beyond my comprehension. Man is constitut- 
ed by the union of body and mind. How this union 
is effected so as to constitute me one person, to me 
is inexplicable. " Such knowledge is too wonder- 
ful for me, I cannot attain to it. Here however 
the union is one with which I am most familiar, yet it 
is mysterious. My body is matter, material, my soul 
is spirit. These are nearly opposite in their natures. 
The body has dimensions, weight, colour, solidity ; 
but we can say none of these things in regard to 
mind. It has neither extension, weight, colour or 
solidity. The close union of such different, and 
apparently opposite qualities so as to constitute me 
one person, to me, is incomprehensible, mysterious, 
unsearchable. Think on it, and see if it is not so 
to you. Yet we know that there is such a union, 
and that different and apparently contrary things 
may be said of a man, e. g. He is mortal and im- 
mortal. We cannot comprehend the union of the two 
natures of Christ, we cannot explain the manner in 
which the higher nature is joined to the human na- 
ture, so as to constitute him one person. 



8 

Some things, however, concerning this union 
may be affirmed ; and I deem it important that they 
be remembered. 

By the union of the two natures, they do 
not become confounded. Matter and mind are 
united in man. Yet by this union, the mind has 
not become matter, nor the body become mind. 
Though closely united, they are really just as dis- 
tinct as before. The body remains material as real- 
ly as before ; and the mind remains spirit. And by 
the union of the human and the higher nature of 
Christ, they are not confounded : though united, 
the human nature remains as it was, and the higher 
nature remains as it was : They are not confounded. 
The one is not raised, the other is not lowered by 
this union. The body is not more spiritual, nor is 
the mind less so, because they are closely united, 
constituting me one person. 

Since the two natures of Christ are so united as 
to constitute one person, therefore whatever be- 
longs to either nature may be attributed to that 
person. In like manner we say of a man, he walks, 
or he is a cripple, referring to his body ; and also he 
is grieved, meaning his mind, yet we say the man 
walks, the man is grieved, man is mortal, and man 
is immortal. So all that belongs to Christ, in either 
nature we affirm of him ; for instance, he was born, 
and was before Abraham. We say Christ died, re- 
ferring not to his higher nature, not to the spiritual 
part of his human nature, but to his body merely. 
When we say such an one is a great man, it is 
not known for certainty whether we mean great in 



5 

body or mind. But in almost every instance, when 
speaking of a man, it may easily be known to which 
part of the man we refer, though we do not mention 
it. When we say a man is mortal, he walks, it is 
readily perceived that we refer to his body, and 
when we say he is immortal, is grieved, &c. it is as 
easily perceived that we are referring to his mind. 
And as easily may it be known, when any thing is 
said of Christ, whether it refers to his body, his hu- 
man nature, or his higher nature. 

When it is said, he was born, and increased in 
wisdom, it refers to his human properties ; and when 
he is said to be the first and the last, to have inspir- 
ed the prophets, and to have come down from above, 
it refers to his higher nature. 

He who in one place is represented as the Cre- 
ator, in another is said to be weary. These things, 
I think, must be said of him in reference to the two 
natures united in that person. 

J I cannot explain this union, any more than I can 
the union of matter and mind in myself. I believe 
many things, however, which I cannot explain. I 
believe that God is present on earth, and in heaven; 
I believe in the self moving power of the magnet; I 
believe that on the testimony of my senses, and 
I believe in the union of two natures in Christ 
on (what I consider) the testimony of God. 
" The sacred writers appear not to take any pains 
to separate the two natures of Christ in any thing 
they say of either ; they every where speak of him 
as man, as more than man, just as we speak of one 
without telling whether we are speaking in regard 

6). 



io 

(o his mind or his body. And it is seldom necessa- 
ry that we should tell, for in almost every case it is 
easily perceived by the nature of the thing asserted 
or denied." 

It is said of Christ, that being rich, for our sakes 
he became poor. If he had not a higher nature I 
know not when he was rich. He took on him the 
form of a servant, " He made himself of no reputa^ 
iion," and many other texts speak of his condescen- 
sion. " In his humiliation his judgment was taken 
away." In what did this humiliation consist ? Did 
this humiliation consist in one of the sons of Adam 
becoming the most exalted of God's creatures ? 
And who of us would not be that man ? I think it 
consisted in his laying aside the glory he had with 
the Father before the world was. 

After all, there are difficulties on this subject. 
If more than man, how could he be also a man ? If 
lie inspired the prophets how could he increase in 
wisdom ? If he was the Creator, how could he be 
wearied with his journey ? If the son of David how 
is he also his Lord ? If before Abraham, how could 
he be born, and be about thirty years old, — many 
centuries afterwards ? If the offspring, how was 
he also the root of David ? — The only explanation 
I know of, is the two natures to which I have refer- 
red, and that to my mind removes all these difficulties. 
And this is the only expedient by which I am able 
to free the sacred writers from confusion, absurdity 
and contradiction. You may again ask how this 
union could take place ; I cannot tell ; I believe 
that it did take place, and that each nature is still 



11 



distinct ; so that while in his human nature Angels 
appeared, and strengthened him, yet in regard to 
his higher nature they worshipped him. 

Again. By this union, the human nature of 
Christ, though not changed was exalted. The body 
is not changed by its union to the mind, yet, it is 
thought to be worthy of, and is treated with, far 
more respect than it would be, w 7 ere it not for this 
union ; or in other words, were it a mere lump of 
flesh. In the same manner the human nature of 
Christ, though not changed, is greatly exalted by its 
union to the higher nature. And his human nature 
becomes more and more exalted just as you exalt 
his higher nature 

I have said, and I hope I have proved, that 
Christ possessed two natures. 

That he was man and also more than man. 

That these two natures are so united as to con- 
stitute one person. 

That by this union neither nature is altered ; the 
human and the higher natures remain as they were. 

That whatever belongs to either of these natures 
may be attributed to Christ. 

That by this union the human nature of Christ, 
though not changed, was greatly exalted. 

Such are the positions I have taken. I have al- 
luded to some of the difficulties attending these po- 
sitions, and have attempted to show the manner in 
which I avoid these difficulties. You however may 
not be satisfied. To you the difficulties may appear 
insurmountable. Then be it so. But stop— I 
would say stop here— -pause,— pray. If you cannot 



12 



believe in the positions, 1 have taken in order to 
reconcile the different, and apparently contradicto- 
ry language of the New Testament in regard to the 
Saviour ; then reconcile this language on any other 
supposition, if you can. But if you cannot do it, 
then you must reject the Bible. I know of no oth- 
er alternative. 

And for my own part, I know of no other theory, 
than the one advanced, by which we can in any 
good degree, harmonize the Gospel, and reconcile 
the language of the Bible in regard to Christ. 

If to my mind the difficulties in the way of ad- 
mitting the two fold nature of Christ, were such 
that I could by no means get along with them, 
then I should be obliged to reject the word of God ; 
and I see no other course for any to take. 

But to my mind there are no such difficulties in 
admitting the union of two natures in him. But it 
is here, as I think, in regard to the two fold nature 
of Christ, that the seeming difficulties, respecting 
his character concentrate. 

The|e are difficulties however which cannot be 
avoided, except by denying the pre-existence of 
Christ, and this most of the Unitarians have con- 
cluded to do. I however should have taken the 
other alternative, and have denied the Bible. 

My second inquiry is, What is the higher nature 
of Christ ? 

I shall say a few words on the position that it 
is not Angelic. It is said,(Heb. 2: 16) He took not 
on him the nature of Angels. We should hardly 



IS 



expect that it would be said of an Angel, that he 
did not take on him the Angelic nature. 

(Heb. 1 : 13) But to which of the Angels 
said he at any time, sit on my right hand &c. 
By angels as the word is used in the' Bible, we 
understand that whole class of beings from man up 
to the Creator. And to which of the angels said 
he at any time — as much as to say, he never said 
this to any one of the angels. 

The higher nature of Christ then is divine. It 
was God manifest in the flesh. The Word was 
with God, and the Word was God. 

But before considering the proof of this, I wish 
to make some preliminary remarks. God is present 
in one place without being absent from another. 
We cannot understand this ; nor can we understand 
how he can be every where present without ob- 
structing the movement of our bodies, and the mo- 
tion of the planetary system. God is present in 
different senses. He is present in Heaven in a 
different sense from what he is on earth. Present 
in Heaven in one peculiar sense, and present in Hell 
in a still different and peculiar sense. During a 
revival of Religion God is said to come into 
that place, but this is still in a peculiar sense. And 
if Christ was indeed divine, God, though not absent 
from Heaven, was then present here on earth, in a 
manner, and in a sense very peculiar. And who 
will say that the thing is impossible, that it could 
not be. 

W T e will now attend to the proof of the fact, 
'that the higher nature of Christ was divine. 



14 

1 . Things are said of him which could be said 
of none but God. 

There are attributes by which God is distin- 
guished from all his creatures. 

The Old Testament every where represents cre- 
ative power as a distinguishing attribute of God. 
It opens with this sublime language. " In the Be- 
ginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and 
from (Isaiah 44: 24) it would appear that he had 
no helper. Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, he 
that formed the from the womb, I am the Lord that 
maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heav- 
ens alone, that spreadest abroad the earth by myself. 
Yet in the New Testament it is said of Christ (John 
1:2) All things were made by him, and without 
him was not any thing made, that was made. This 
language is peculiar ; all in the New T Testament, 
does not mean in every instance positively the whole, 
as when it is said, all Jerusalem went to the bap- 
tism of John, it is not supposed that every individual 
went to him, therefore the other clause was added 
" and without him was not any thing made that was 
made." But if Christ w T as himself a created being 
then there was one thing, which he did not make. 

In Col. 1: 16, 17 speaking of Christ (as you may 
be convinced by looking,) it is written, For by him 
were all things created, that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or pow- 
ers, all things were created by him and for him ; and 
he is before all things, and by him all things con- 
sist. And (Heb. 1:10) speaking to Christ; Thou 



15 



Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the 
earth, and the Heavens are the work of thy hands. 
And soon after it is said ( ch. 3: 4 J He that built all 
things is God. Now if Christ and God are the 
same, there is no confusion ; but if they are not, how 
are we to reconcile such repersentations ? When I 
consider the greatness of the Universe, and the pow- 
er exerted in its formation, I say, the creator is my- 
God ; and this opinion is strengthened when I read 
of some who worshipped, and served the creature 
more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. 

2. Consider the ivorship paid to Christ. 

It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Jer. 17: 5.) 
Cursed be the man, that trusteth in man. Yet 
we are frequently commanded to love, serve and 
trust the Lord Jesus. In (Heh. 1:6) it is said, " Let 
all the Angels of God worship him." Still it may 
be asked ivhat kind of worship are we to render to 
Christ? And we are told (John 5: 23,) That "all 
men should honor the Son, even as they honor the 
Father" — render him the same kind of worship and 
adoration. Christians are exhorted (2 Cor. 5: 15,) 
to live unto him that died for them, and rose again ; 
but we are required to live unto God. Again we 
hear the command, and a very extensive one it is, 
(Col. 3: 23,) Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to 
the Lord, and not unto men ; the Lord Jesus is 
meant here, for the next words are, " knowing that 
of the Lord ye shall receive the reward, for we 
serve the Lord Christ." In another place it is said 



16 

u Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all 
to the glory of God" 

To Christ the Apostles directed their prayers. 
This practice was so prevalent, that the early Chris- 
tians were known as " those who called on the 
name of Christ." 

Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, prayed, saying 
" Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 

Paul directs his Epistle (1 Cor. 1: 12) To all 
that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ 
their Lord and ours. Before his conversion he went 
forth with authority from the Chief priests to per- 
secute christians, and when Annanias was directed 
to go to him, he objected, saying (Acts 9: 13, 14,) 
Lord 1 have heard by many of this man, how much 
evil he hath done, and here he hath authority from 
the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name ; 
that he means the name of Christ is evident, for 
when Paul preached Christ, (v. 21, ) they said, is not 
this he, that destroyed them who called on this 
name ? What name, let me inquire ? Not the name 
of God merely, for Paul himself and all the Jews 
were accustomed to pray — it must mean the name 
of Christ. 

Were they mistaken in the worship they 
rendered him ? We cannot think so, as they were 
under the guiding influence of the Spirit. But 
Christ himself, when about to leave the world, had 
said to the disciples (John 14: 14J If ye shall ask 
any thing in my name, I will do it for you. And 
again, Whatsoever ye shall ask, /will do it for you. 
The evidence of the fact, that the disciples prayed 



17 



to Christ is abundant, And in (Rev. 5: 13 J we see 
every creature in heaven, and on earth ascribing 
blessing, and honor, and glory, and power to him that 
sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb forever 
and ever. Paul said I can do all things through 
Christ strengthening me, and to him he looked for 
support. 

3. Christ is Omniscient, and Omnipresent, (John 
2:24. J But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, 
because he knew all men, and needed not that any 
should testify of man, for he knew what was in man. 
(6: 61,) Jesus knew from the beginning, who they 
were that believed not, and who should betray him. 
When Nathaniel was under the fig-tree he saw him ; 
and when Lazarus was dead he knew it. (Matt. 18: 
20,) Where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them. And in the 
last verse of Matthew he says " Lo I am with you 
ahvays, even unto the end of the world." 

While on earth, Christ spoke of himself as be- 
ing also in heaven ; (John 3: 13,) The son of man 
which is in heaven. (John 21: 17,) Peter said unto 
him, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest 
that I love thee. Paul represents him as every 
where present, and upholding all things by the word 
of his power. ( see Heb. 1:3.) Who is it, that up- 
holds and preserves and sustains the universe ? God, 
He must be every where present in order to hear 
the prayers addressed to him. In the Old Testa- 
ment God says " I the Lord search the heart, 
and try the reins; " he speaks of this as an attri- 
bute belonging to him alone,. ( Yet in Rev. 2 : 23 ) 



18 

Christ says, "all the churches shall know that /am 
he who searcheth the reins and the heart." Com- 
paring such Texts would lead us to think that 
Christ was God. He who is to judge the world 
will doubtless be able to search our hearts. If 
these and such like representations do not exhibit 
Christ as Omniscient and Omnipresent, I do not un- 
derstand the force of language; and 1 know of but one 
Omniscient and Omnipresent Being, and that is God. 

It is said, in (Matt. 11 : 27) No man know- 
eth the Son but the Father, ( knovveth, here, I sup- 
pose means hath intimate knowledge of) neither 
knoweth any man the Father but the Son. Why 
so difficult to know the Son ? why does it belong 
only to the Father ? The difficulty and knowledge 
here spoken of, seem to be equal on both sides. 

4. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ. 

How do we prove God to be Omnipotent ? He 
created the universe ; and he who could do all this, 
we think must be Omnipotent. Yet creation is as- 
cribed to Christ. God raises the dead. And this 
is said also of Christ ; speaking of Christ it is said 
" whom God raised from the dead, " but in anoth- 
er place we hear the meek Jesus saying, " destroy 
this temple, and in three days / will raise it up, / have 
power to lay down my life, and /have power to take 
it again." How can we get along with these things 
without supposing that He and the Father are one. 
What things soever the Father doeth, these also do- 
eth the son likewise : does not this mean that he 
has equal power with the Father ? He styles himself 
the Almighty. 1 know of but one Almighty beingj 



. ) 



19 



and that is the Almighty God. (In Isaiah 48 : 12) 
God says, hearken unto me O Jacob, I am the first, 
and I also the last. Christ says, I am Alpha and 
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the 
end. (Heb. 13: 8,) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, 
to day and forever; if such things as we have noticed 
may truly be said of Christ, no wonder he thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God ! no wonder 
John says the word was God. 
5. Christ is called God. 

Speaking of the coming Messiah (Isa. 9 : 6,) it 
is said, His name shall be called Wonderful, Coun- 
sellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the 
Prince of Peace. (John 1 : 1,) In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. (In Romans 9 : 5,) Christ is said 
to be God over all blessed forever — and even the un- 
learned reader, by consulting Wardlaw's reply to 
"Fates, may be convinced, as I think, that it is impos- 
sible to give any other sense to the original than that 
which is given by our translation.* (In Acts 2: 8,) 
He is called the Lord of glory. (Rev. 19: 16,) His 
name is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. (In 1 

* The unlearned are frequently confounded by hearing it said in the orig- 
inal it would appear differently'. One consideration will here suffice. The 
English is not the only translation of the Bible. It is in all the languages of 
Europe — and if the difficulties originate in the mistakes of our translators, as 
some pretend, what shall we say of the many translations into other lan- 
guages ? This controversy extends in some degree to all the nations of Eu- 
rope — and there, men make use of the same texts which we use. Is the 
fault in their translations also ? A singular coincidence indeed, if it be true. 
But the controversy with the Arians, commenced long since. Was the 
fault then also in the translation ? For my own part I read the same Bible, 
whether reading the Greek, the Latin, or the English. 



20 



John 5: 20,) it is said, referring to Christ, this is the 
true God and eternal life. 

(Heb. 1 : 10.) But unto the Son he saith, Thy 
throne O God, is forever and ever ; and the speak- 
er goes on to say, "Thou Lord in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are 
the work of thy hands." 

(1 Timothy 3: 16) And without controversy 
great is the mystery of Godliness, God was mani- 
fest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, 
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
received up into glory. (Acts 7 : 59,) And they 
stoned Stephen, calling upon God, saying Lord 
Jesus, receive my spirit. Thomas, when his unbe- 
lief was removed, exclaimed, my Lord and my God. 
(In Zech. 13 : 7) we find "Awake O sword against 
my Shepherd, against the man thatismy felloio saith 
the Lord of hosts by fellow, we understand an 
equal. So in regard to the human nature of Christ, 
he is said to be anointed with the oil of gladness 
above his fellows — his human nature being exalted 
above his fellows, and as to his higher nature he is 
the fellow of the Great Jehovah. 

I do not offer this work to the public as a finish- 
ed argument in favor of the Divinity of Christ. 
Trinitarians are not called on for such an effort. 
And if they were, the duty would not devolve on me, 
but on men in different stations, and of different at- 
tainments. Professor Stuart has given an able de- 
fence of this doctrine, and one which has long re- 
mained unanswered; (see preface to 3d Edition) my 



21 



object has been rather to exhibit in a plain manner 
the mode of reasoning, and the manner in which we 
satisfy our own minds than pursue the argument at 
length. 

At first I determined to be brief, and there are 
many arguments, of which I have not, and cannot 
take any notice. 

I have thought on paper rather than written. 
My object I hope has been to exhibit Truth. 

I might allude to the rite of Baptism, and ask what 
is meant by baptizing into the name of the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost ? And I think it would be diffi- 
cult for our opponents to give a satisfactory explan- 
ation of the thing. 

There are not merely many other Texts, 
but if I may so express myself, many Veins 
in the Scriptures, which I cannot understand, 
unless Christ possessed two natures ; and unless 
his higher nature was vastly exalted. I cannot un- 
derstand why, how and for what reason, the Apos- 
tles every where, and in such a variety of ways, 
represent the coming of Christ as so decidedly the 
greatest and brightest exhibition of the love and mer- 
cy of the Creator for his creatures. Others had been 
raised up to give men instruction and example, and 
had died in defence of the truth. And it is equally 
hard for me to understand, why the Apostles dwell 
so much on the great love, which Christ himself man- 
ifested for us. Paul speaks, not in the language of 
enthusiasm, of the heigth and length and depth 
and breadth of the love of Christ, which passeth 
knowledge. This is certainly the language of im« 



22 



passioned feeling, and it is akin toother language on 
the same subject. 

How was this wonderful love exhibited ? By 
his dying in defence of the truth ? Which of the 
prophets did they not persecute ? Which of the Apos- 
tles did not sutler martyrdom ? Of old they were 
sawn asunder, driven into dens and caves of the 
earth. Surely there was something in the love of 
Christ, which exalted it so far above the love of 
prophets, apostles and other martyrs to the truth, 
that it became an object on which the apostles con- 
tinued to dwell with intense interest and deep emo- 
tion. To say the least, I think, that the love of 
Christ in the New Testament is made a subject not 
less prominent than the love of the Father. If man 
merely, why, at his death did the sun withdraw his 
light, and Heaven put on the habiliments of mour- 
ing ? 

'* Is Ocean into tempest wrought 

u To waft a feather or to drown a fly ? 

The Apostles seem to unite the love of Christ 
with, and to prove it by, his humiliation and conde- 
scension — And again I ask in what did this humilia- 
tion consist ? was it in one of the sons of Adam be- 
coming the most exalted of Gods creatures ? And 
who of us would not be that man ? 

I might show how the prophets in the Old Tes- 
tament, speaking of the coming Messiah, have with 
great apparent contradiction, represented him as 
exalted and abased, master and servant, Priest and 
Victim, Mortal and yet the conquerer of Death — I 
might show the application of the name Jehovah to 



23 



Christ, and consider how the apostle proves the fact, 
that we shall be judged of Christ, by quoting a pas- 
sage from the old Testament where it is said, every 
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall con- 
fess to God ; but that this would have been no 
proof of the fact which he was attempting to prove 
unless the Word was God. I might allude to the 
fact that the apostles appear in the Epistles often to 
interchange the words, Christ and God, using the one 
which was merely most convenient. Such inquiries 
are pursued in more labored, and more able produc- 
tions, and to them I refer the reader. If I know my 
own feelings, I do not wish to attempt great things, 
or to push an argument beyond its just boundaries. 
I do not write for the greatly learned, but for men 
as ignorant as myself. 

I shall now consider some of the ways and argu- 
ments by which men attempt to disprove this doc- 
trine. 

Sometimes they attempt to prove that Christ 
is man. W e acknowledge the fact, but we believe 
him also more than man. 

Again they say much to prove the Unity of God. 
That there is but one God, we give our hearty 
assent. We do not hold to three Gods, and it is 
well known that we do not. Mr. Yates, a champi- 
on for Unitarians in England, speaking of the ex- 
planation of the Trinity given by Trinitarians, says ? 
(page 33 of Appendix) most of these explanations 
perfectly exclude the idea of three distinct persons, 
and represent God as strictly one person as he is 
supposed to be by any Unitarian. This concession 



24 



is made by an intelligent Unitarian. And if we do 
not make even a distinction in the Godhead, much 
less ought we to be charged with believing in three 
Gods. The proofs of the Unity of God are incon- 
testable. We believe, fully believe in that Unity. 
We believe that there are three, that bear record in 
heaven, and still that these are one. We believe 
that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and 
that the Spirit is God. We believe also that there 
is some distinction in the Godhead, "that the Father 
is not in every respect the same as the Son ; and 
that the Holy spirit is not in every respect the same 
as either the Father or the Son," in what this dis- 
tinction consists we do not pretend to say — Man 
we know is two, body and mind, in one respect ; 
and one in another respect ; in one sense an army is 
many, and in another, it is one. And the like asser- 
tion might be made in regard to many things. I 
do not mean by these to illustrate the distinction in 
the Godhead. The distinction is above my com- 
prehension, and what relating to God is not ? Proving 
the Unity of God however does not prove that this one 
God may not have been present, at the same time, on 
earth and in heaven — yea, present on earth in a pecu- 
liar manner by a union of Divine, with human na- 
ture. 

This doctrine, it is said, represents God as taking 
too much interest in a small part of his works. 
God himself has represented his love to us as very 
great, and I do not think He would be disposed to 
exaggerate such a fact. Denying that love is 
a poor expedient for avoiding our obligations. 



25 



It is often asked if Christ was truly divine with 
what propriety could he perform the duty of prayer ? 
Turn back to page 5, and you will find a sufficient 
reason. As man he did in all respects set us an 
example. 

It is said Christ is called the son of God, and 
therefore he is not equal to the Father. Some 
make a good deal of this argument, but really I do 
not know what is meant. I have no distinct ideas 
as to the force of what is said. Son of God, is 
one of the names by which the Saviour is known ; 
as in other places he is called Christ, the Messiah, 
the Shepherd, Jesus. The name Son of God, no 
more proves what the nature and attributes of the 
Word were, than any other name given to him. 

I will not for a moment suppose that there are 
any, who think Christ to be the son of God in the 
same sense that Solomon was the son of David. 

If this name has any thing to do with the argu- 
ment, it proves the proper divinity of the Saviour. 
When we call one the son of man, we mean that he 
is man ; and by parity of reasoning, to call Christ 
the son of God, is calling him God. Because a son, 
must he therefore be inferior, but where is there 
another son whose nature is inferior to his father's ? 
Are we a degenerating race ? 

I do not think this name has any thing to do 
with the question one way or the other — but I do 
not understand what is said on this point. 

And on all questions it has been a rule with me 
to conclude that a man does not understand him- 
4 



26 



self, unless lie speaks in such a manner, that I can 
understand him. 

I shall now consider some of the texts, which by 
some are thought to disprove this doctrine. Some 
texts speak of Christ's being sent, therefore it is 
said he must be inferior. This argument nroves 

O 1 

too much, and destroys itself. Unitarians, all of them, 
deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, and main- 
tain that the words " Holy Spirit, or Spirit of 
God " mean the same as " the one true God ; " it 
is, say they, one way of naming God ; just as he is 
in one place called Jehovah, and in another Lord 
or God. But Christ promises to send the Spirit, 
that is, promises to send God, for by the Spirit, Uni- 
tarians understand the one true God ; is God there- 
fore inferior to Christ. Christ says I came in my 
Father's name ; but the Spirit is to come in his 
( Christ's ) name ; and does this prove the Spirit in- 
ferior to Christ? Jn (John 15: 26 & 16:7,) 
Christ said of the Spirit / will send him. Does be- 
ing sent, imply inferiority in nature, or merely an 
official inferiority. A man may employ a messenger 
whose real dignity is equal to his own, or even one 
deserving of more respect. Hear the words of Christ 
on this subject, him that is great among you let him 
be servant of ail. Speaking of the spirit or "the one 
true God," Christ said (John 16: 14) He shall glo- 
rify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show 
it unto you. That is, as Unitarians understand it, 
Christ is to send here the one true God in his name, 
and says of him, he shall glorify me, for he shall re- 



27 



ceire of mine, and shall show it unto you. I know not 
how Unitarians attempt to avoid this difficulty. 

"My Father is greater than I" Some have chos- 
en this text in order to establish the doctrine of the 
proper divinity of Christ. What human being it may 
be asked, what mere man, as many consider the Sav- 
iour to be, would think of saying that, God was grea- 
ter than himself? Christ may be officially inferior 
to the Father, but if he is also in nature inferior to 
him, then the difference must be vast, — The Father 
must be infinitely greater ; and it would still be pre- 
sumption in him to compare himself with the Deity. 
What created bein°; would think of saying that he 
was not so great as his God. 

The natures of all men are equal, yet one is said 
to be greater than another. Man is said to be above 
the woman. Is his nature superior, or is it merely an 
official difference ? Now as man is the head of the 
woman so is God the head of the son, but in nature 
man and woman are equal ; the difference is mere- 
ly official. 

" On examination, it appears not to be the ob- 
ject of Jesus to compare his own nature with that 
of the Father, — but his condition. If ye loved me, 
said he to his weeping disciples, ye would rejoice 
that I said I go unto the Father, for the Father is 
greater than I ; i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to 
leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and re- 
sume that glory which I had with the Father before 
the world was." — That I am to be in a better con- 
dition. 

In (John 10: 29) where this sentiment is again 



28 



expressed, Christ, speaking of his disciples had 
said, none shall pluck them out of my hand. He 
then adds, my Father is greater than all, and no 
man is able to pluck them out of his hand — as much 
as to say, surely you must have confidence in God's 
power, which is infinite ; and his very next words 
are, I and my Father are one. One, he seems to me 
in this place to mean, one in power and ability to 
keep and defend — will you look at the passage, and 
see if such is not the meaning. 

The Son can do nothing of himself. 

There are a numerous class of texts of this de- 
scription, many which amount to the same.* And 
the person, to whose mind they present difficulties 
may expect to find many of them. 

Christ appeared in this world as a teacher. 
The Jews were disposed to accuse him of blasphe- 
my, and of attempting to A overthrow their religion. 
And by such texts as the one referred to, Christ 
says as much as this. I am a true teacher, you have 
no reason to imagine that I am come to destroy the 
worship of God — I do nothing of myself- — I have no 
interest of my own to establish-— I seek not my own 
glory — but I act in perfect unison of design with the 
Father ; and this appears also from the works which 
I perform. He says that hereafter the world shall 
know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave 
me commandment even so do 1. Does he not 
mean that the world should know that he was what 
he pretended to be, a teacher from God ? Then 
said Jesus unto them, " When ye have lifted up the 

* See hundred arguments in favour of Unitarianism. 



29 



son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and 
that I do nothing of myself ; but as the Father hath 
taught me, I speak these things." Again I ask, is 
not the meaning then shall ye know that I am what 
I pretend to be, and teach the truth, and act in per- 
fect accordance to the will of God ? 

In (John 5: 19 ) where it is said, the Son can do 
nothing of himself, it is added, but what he seeth 
the Father do, for what things soever he doeth 
these also doeth the Son likewise. Here though 
Christ says he can do nothing of himself, (meaning 
that he has private interest of his own to promote.) 
Yet in this same verse, is it. not said, that he can do> 
and does do all that the Father does. — hath the 
same power to work ? What things soever he doeth 
these also doeth the Son likewise — While Christ 
in this text denies the opinion of the Jews in regard 
to his wishing to destroy the worship of God, he 
still claims an equality with him, saying, that he 
performed all the works of the Father. (John 7: 17) 
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the 
doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak 
of myself the meaning most obviously is, ye shall 
know whether I have told the truth. To me this 
appears to be, not a forced, but a perfectly natural 
exposition of this text, and others of the same class. 

To me therefore, they present no kind of diffi- 
culty ; but the minds of others may be differently 
constituted, or difficulties may present themselves 
to persons of more intellectual acumen where none 
appear to me. 

One more text, (Mark 13: 34) But of that day, 



v 



30 

and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which 
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 

This texts presents real difficulties, if it was 
said in reference to the human nature of Christ, (as 
in regard to that nature, it was once said, that he 
increased in wisdom) then the difficulty would be 
avoided. 

But there are objections against giving this ex- 
planation. I am willing this text should remain un- 
explained. And however strange it may appear to 
some, if they credit my sincerity, it is the only text 
which to my mind presents any serious objection to 
the doctrine of the Trinity. 

And in regard to this text, were I sure it could 
never be explained here on earth, it would still be 
impossible for me to believe, that he who is said to 
know all things, that he who inspired the prophets, 
and who was himself to judge the world, did not 
know the time in which the Judgment was to take 
place. This is my only difficulty, can Unitarians 
in Honesty say as much for their belief. I will not 
judge them. I should think however that after thcry 
had removed or explained away those texts, which 
give the name of God to Christ ; and had proceeded 
to, and removed that numerous class of texts, w r hich 
ascribe divine ivorks, and divine attributes to him, 
that even then, they had not surmounted half their 
difficulties. I might say not one tenth part. They 
must do away all those texts also, which speak of 
the pre-existence of Christ, and which compel us to 
believe in the union of two natures in him : 
for it is here (if I understand the subject) that the 



31 

main difficulties concentrate : and in doing all this 
I should be compelled to throw away my Bible, and 
with it all my hopes. 

It seems for some cause to be taken for granted 
by Unitarians, (though I know not that it has ever 
been conceded) that if the Divinity of the Saviour 
can be discredited, then they are at liberty to reject 
also the doctrine of regeneration, the necessity of re- 
pentance (as understood by us) ; the influence of 
the spirit, and may I not add, the future, or at least, 
the endless punishment of the wicked ; but I do not 
see how these doctrines are of necessity combined. 
In the remarks I have just made, perhaps I ought to 
have excepted the Free-will Baptists, among whom 
there are Unitarians. I am not sufficiently acquaint- 
ed with that denomination to form any judgment 
respecting them. But Unitarians in general, if I 
mistake not, think that if they are able to disbelieve 
the Divinity of the Saviour, then they are at liberty 
to reject in a body all, (as Trinitarians deem them) 
the essential doctrines of the Gospel. 

This, as I have thought, is what renders theirs 
a favourite system. I cannot conceive why men, or 
even wicked men should feel any predilection or 
prejudice either in favor or against the doctrine of 
the Trinity, when considered abstractly, or by itself: 
but I do conceive that men may have great preju- 
dices in favour of the system of Doctrines, which 
usually attends the denial of the Trinity ; and it is 
embraced by many, I fear, though they mav not be 
conscious of the fact, because it is an easy kind of re- 



32 



ligion ; one which requires fewer self denials, and 
causes them less disturbance, though they live as 
thej list. If this judgment is harsh, or if I am 
mistaken, I hope it is a mistake of the head,, and 
not of the heart. 

The Unitarian system I consider to be dangerous 
not so much on account of their having confused, 
and inadequate views of the Saviour, as on account 
of their views in regard to the other essential 
doctrines, which usually go along with such a be- 
lief. But the system considered as a whole, I cannot 
avoid thinking, does away the Bible or makes it 
another Gospel ; and I tremble in view of their dan- 
ger. 



t 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



